Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • <br /> Regular Meeting Page 8 <br /> Community Development Director Jopke gave an update regarding the issue of billboards in the <br /> community. He stated that he believed that a Code amendment was the most appropriate way to <br /> approach the issue. He stated that he had been directed by the Planning Commis :* to conduct <br /> further research into the State requirements for a permit and had learned 'it th <>: te would only <br /> grant a permit in commercial or industrial zoning districts and at they*, .`` gossue a permit in <br /> a situation where re-zoning was done strictly for the purpos-,„5 lowitli. :..::t:. s. He stated that <br /> the State also requires permits for billboards along State and pa eral highw i : a ed that he t afi <br /> spoken to a consultant who informed him that a permit hadeen previou :''gran♦; °•° t.k ,* wine hies <br /> to allow for a billboard on a golf course within an instititk al typeof zoning. ' <cF.this <br /> indicated a precedent had been set. ,_. : <br /> Jopke stated he spoke to Mike Cronin who suggested thea` - •t issues to considered, one <br /> being whether or not CRP is the proper zoning for the golf cou `" :.; ' :dly, that the Code issues <br /> regarding signage in a CRP or PF districts need to b-�,t.!.>;�-wed. "e,st '::0 t at the present time, <br /> no signage is permitted in these districts but they d .:., ;:.:. �;�:: his matteitiO ld be addressed as part <br /> of the overall discussion. Jopke stated that,: 'er •k,ic '1 : ::,:gardin revenue projections were <br /> o `° ' rst time revenue would be <br /> discussed with Mike Hammerschmidt �` belie. 'd� .a,.. ���. �> <br /> approximately $12-24,000 per year pert board,; ependii',n.`' ( the provider as well as factors <br /> Illsuch as the location of the billboard. <br /> .,..:.,: ,i„. <br /> Chair Peterson stated that he ha. i erved .a nt billboo ;ds and asked if they generated revenue. <br /> bfflJopke stat-� `i `. he was ?Cu. ' _ He confirmed�=: at any revenue generated from the signs would <br /> have to ®� -tire the . e... :, e golf course and could not be directed to the General Fund. <br /> V <br /> d <br /> Jopke stated d i : pis:... :•< ch he ':.; ;xoken with the Community Development Directors of the <br /> x:A a x >tt .;: <br /> cities of S %;' ew an. .; ; 4 Is who informed him that their requirements prohibited construction <br /> of new !;iboards. He st > .� �.this point, he had not been able to determine when the Ordinance <br /> ha. . , . - i - . s Id find no discussion which addressed the billboard issue in the <br /> ` <br /> Fo :i"2000 meeting ma ial`. <br /> . $ge issioner Bra. < h stated that the issues should be defined and resolved before further <br /> vtiqpi:i �4. and r-, ed that the Commission not"shut the door" on the billboard issue. He stated <br /> ` ! <br /> -d very few vacant billboards, and if they are vacant, it was because they were in <br /> o e0.415�K w1,04.� : He stated that Mr. Hammerschmidt was researching locations that would be <br /> appropriate for billboards. He requested that the Work Sessions be rescheduled to meet on <br /> Wednesday so that he would have the opportunity to attend. He suggested the first direction would <br /> be to change that current CRP zoning. <br /> • <br />